DislikedNeed help from Good coder. I have been using TMA+CG mladen Indicator for few days. I notice there is an error when calling the indicator USING iCustom. The error log as below. 2020.09.03 16:56:45.661 TMA+CG mladen EURUSD,H1: indicator is too slow, 7047 ms. rewrite the indicator, please I have tried changing "int counted_bars= 10;" and also "for(i = 10; i >= 0; i--)", seems that the problem also same. Anyone who can help me with this issue is highly appreciated. Thank you. {file}Ignored
TMA+CG Mladen indicator problem - rewrite the indicator, please
- #42
- Feb 14, 2022 9:04am Feb 14, 2022 9:04am
{quote} we are waiting your speech about "repainting" & "recalculating"!!https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...4#post13896054
- #43
- Feb 14, 2022 10:37am Feb 14, 2022 10:37am
{quote} this is good, додык-гав-гав!! stop being such prick. Put on your big boy pants and tell us about "repainting" & "recalculating"...https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...4#post13896054
- #45
- Feb 14, 2022 11:25am Feb 14, 2022 11:25am
{quote}
- #46
- Feb 14, 2022 4:31pm Feb 14, 2022 4:31pm
- Joined May 2010 | Status: Straight line Fest | 3,191 Posts
{quote} come tell us and we'll listen!what do these definitions "repainting" & "recalculating" mean in your understanding?
M.
- #47
- Edited 6:21pm Feb 14, 2022 6:00pm | Edited 6:21pm
{quote} Post 11 seems to explain it, what go you think? M.
It is not directly connected, but in the end it implicitly is
-----------------------------------------------
It has been told multiple times that repainting is a coding error
Here is an example of repainting (just pointed out some of the many errors on that example that happen when a coder does not know how to make a non-repainting multi color line - code posted by one of the "contributors" of the dispute at this thread, but it seems that he has no idea that his code does that and that he has no idea why it does that)
The other way of repainting (coding error) that is still a repainting, is stuff like solar wind indicator. That happened when one guy was converting tradestation code to metatrader code and did not know that indexes in tradestation are not used the same way as in metatrader. And it still remains a coding error, and does not change the fact that repainting is a coding error
-----------------------------------------------
Recalculating, on the other hand is a result of a mathematical model and it is not an error, but simply a result of the model that requires such calculation. One of the most famous recalculating models is the regression analysis (that is being used for more than 200 years - despite that "error"
) in its classical usage - deciding to stop using regression analysis would, for example, stop the world as we know it in the same second we would stop using it (just check where it is used and why almost all we take for granted would stop)Centered TMA was invented by J.M.Hurst and Brian Millard (in his book "Channels & Cycles: A Tribute to J. M. Hurst") and is not a coding error. Whoever wishes can get that book and can read a very nice explanation of how the centering is done and why exactly the TMA is suitable for centering. Basic method of extrapolating the missing part was invented by "bookkeeper". What I have done was a much, much simpler solution that still is doing the job expected to be done in order to keep all correct and as defined by the two inventors mentioned at the start of this paragraph
Not going to mention numerous other recalculating methods (everybody can do their own due diligence - internet can be used for that too, that self proclaimed experts seem to be forgetting) and all those methods can be used once when whoever uses it is clear that it can and will recalculate. Without that knowledge it remains in the domain of magical stuff and that never was what TA was all about
So the two (repainting and recalculating) have nothing in common and never had
-----------------------------------------------
Repainting is and will remain being a coding error regardless of the wannabe coders and self proclaimed experts wishful thinking.
Also, unrelated to repainting or coding errors, using stuff like setting calculating period 0 of an indicator to cause a zero divide is simply falling into one of the Murphy laws that states that you can not protect any system from fools, but that is telling more of intentions of why it is done than of how it is done and it is a matter of (any) forum rules.
-----------------------------------------------
That is all from me regarding this (eternal it seems) subject
The TRO replica still remains on my ignore list since there is no possible cause why I should consider anything raised by him as worth paying attention to
- #48
- Feb 14, 2022 6:41pm Feb 14, 2022 6:41pm
- Joined May 2010 | Status: Straight line Fest | 3,191 Posts
{quote} I hope you don't mind using your post as a starting point for this post It is not directly connected, but in the end it implicitly is ----------------------------------------------- It has been told multiple times that repainting is a coding error Here is an example of repainting (just pointed out some of the many errors on that example that happen when a coder does not know how to make a non-repainting multi color line - code posted by one of the "contributors" of the dispute at this thread, but it seems that he has no idea that his code...
Yep that's fine.
I've always assumed that while a bar/candle remains open Candle(0), then continual calculation can be programmed to take place with a potential repaint depending on what's been programmed, although I don't like the term repaint, all the indicator is doing is following its programed routine.
On bar close .... Candle (1 and so on) a recalculation takes place.
So there may be a simple misinterpretation of calculation and recalculate.
I may well have got this completely wrong but then I'm not a rocket scientist!
- #49
- Feb 14, 2022 7:15pm Feb 14, 2022 7:15pm
{quote} Yep that's fine. I've always assumed that while a bar/candle remains open Candle(0), then continual calculation can be programmed to take place with a potential repaint depending on what's been programmed, although I don't like the term repaint, all the indicator is doing is following its programed routine. On bar close .... Candle (1 and so on) a recalculation takes place. So there may be a simple misinterpretation of calculation and recalculate. I may well have got this completely wrong but then I'm not a rocket scientist!
Again -- recalculation refers to Bar[0]. Repainting refers to historical bars -- Bar[1] thru Bar[n].
And if whatever I just wrote is not consistent with mladen then ignore me. I'm indebted to mladen because I grew up on his indicators...
- #50
- Feb 14, 2022 7:20pm Feb 14, 2022 7:20pm
- Joined May 2010 | Status: Straight line Fest | 3,191 Posts
{quote} My understanding is that recalculation refers to the calculations occurring on Bar[0], which is the only bar that is alive in real-time. It's called "recalculation" since Bar[0] is repeatedly being (re)calculated. And repainting occurs when the algorithm uses more recent data and then goes back in time and recalculates bars that should have been carved in stone. This is why when you attach a repainting indicator to a chart the markings look great, but when traded in real-time either markings appear that will later disappear or markings don't...
Yep, your probably right. Fortunately I just use bar close, always have done so if something moves, then its expected.
Actually thinking about it if a bar remains open then a continual calculation takes place, on Bar closed whatever data came from previous bar close, is recalculated...
- #51
- Feb 14, 2022 7:45pm Feb 14, 2022 7:45pm
{quote} Yep, your probably right. Fortunately I just use bar close, always have done so if something moves, then its expected. Actually thinking about it if a bar remains open then a continual calculation takes place, on Bar closed whatever data came from previous bar close, is recalculated...
I need to clarify a couple of things.
1. Recalculation of Bar[0] is perfectly normal and expected.
2. Repainting is usually undesirable, but if you understand its implications and if the indicator offers other insights then use at your own risk.
Bars are indexed from '0' to 'n', where '0' is the current bar and 'n' is the oldest bar on the chart. Incoming tick data is reflected in Bar[0] -- which is why the price of Bar[0] fluctuates. Bar[1] - Bar[n] never fluctuate -- they are drawn using OHLC data which is carved in stone. OHLC data is historical -- it doesn't change unless you have a time machine.
Bar[0] can also be described with OHLC data -- but there is an additional detail to be aware of. Bar[0]'s Open price is carved in stone -- it doesn't change. While Bar[0] is alive only its High, Low and Close values change. So, what are the implications of this? The algebra of most indicator algorithms use the 'Close' value -- so the indicator markings will fluctuate on Bar[0]. But some algorithms will use Bar[0]'s Open value -- in which case their markings do NOT fluctuate on Bar[0].
Question: Why would an indicator choose to use Open values instead of Close values?
Answer: This depends on the algebra -- but if you use Open values then you might be able to use signals that occur on Bar[0]. Think about that. If you can use signals that occur on Bar[0] that gets you into a trade much earlier, and if you are trading H1 or H4 that can be yuuge. Using Close values requires that you wait until Bar[0] closes and becomes Bar[1].
Too much talk about bars -- I gotta get a beer...
- #52
- Feb 14, 2022 8:05pm Feb 14, 2022 8:05pm
- Joined May 2010 | Status: Straight line Fest | 3,191 Posts
{quote} Friend -- whenever you mention 'bar' all I can think about is beer...
Agree with your post, as always it all depends on what one is trying to achieve with the indicator and whether an open bar using its OHL or its close price that will obviously change until actual bar has closed.
The one factor to take into consideration when waiting for bar open rather than bar close would be whether a gap creates an issue.
Post 11 seems to explain it, what go you think? M.
so yet in friday i read this topic starting from 1 post.but додык barked, that he could tell us something new about "repainting" & "recalculating"...
My understanding is that recalculation refers to the calculations occurring on Bar[0], which is the only bar that is alive in real-time. It's called "recalculation" since Bar[0] is repeatedly being (re)calculated. And repainting occurs when the algorithm uses more recent data and then goes back in time and recalculates bars that should have been carved in stone. This is why when you attach a repainting indicator to a chart the markings look great, but when traded in real-time either markings appear that will later disappear or markings don't appear...
i expected more from you. 
It has been told multiple times that repainting is a coding error......
many dealers/scammers still do this, so that their indicators/experts would look nice on history [at left on chart]. 
same goes for Solar Wind: here repainting can be removed just as easily as in your TMA centered.
but it once seemed to someone that he created Holy Grail, and he decided not to remove "error", but to use it for his own selfish interests.
so.. you will/should tell your amazing tales about repainting to naive fools!
The other way of repainting (coding error) that is still a repainting, is stuff like solar wind indicator. That happened when one guy was converting tradestation code to metatrader code and did not know that indexes in tradestation are not used the same way as in metatrader. And it still remains a coding error, and does not change the fact that repainting is a coding error....
that many traders don't take into account Price volatility on last few candles!on chart: in moment: if impulse = everything doesn't look as beautiful as it is in your history...
do you ever look at all what is actually happening on Price charts??
for example, you position your TMA centered as trend indicator.. then what does it matter if it repaints on last 2-5 candles?
yes and problem of TMA repainting can be solved in simpler ways, excluding combination of 3 buffers in code.
so.. don't invent fake problems.. and then invent ways to eliminate these fake problems.
there are more serious problems... nnda..
https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...5#post13893535 study indicator settings and test it well...
why are you quiet, demagogues?
aren't there any more of you, who want to tell us something new about "repainting" & "recalculating" !?
or.. maybe.. all same.. let's deal with serious problems??
https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...5#post13893535
https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...4#post13894454
aren't there any more of you, who want to tell us something new about "repainting" & "recalculating" !?
or.. maybe.. all same.. let's deal with serious problems??
https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...5#post13893535
https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...4#post13894454
study indicator settings and test it well...
3. Like I said whoever does the modification of the indicator should be responsible for his or her mod. When the Tma centered bands mt4 was first posted that was the name as posted by Mladen. As time went on, and after mods the name was changed to Mladen, CG, no repaint bands, etc.,etc. and etc. Why would the original developer of the indicator have to be responsible for the mods and name changes done by others?
...... people like this who accuse the original file poster of mods done by others and expects the originator to fix
mrtools... maybe you know who is real author of this code??
i was looking for some/one rajivxxx, but i didn't find anything significant.. as if it is ghost!?
1. real author of this blocks of code??
Inserted Code
int init()
{
timeFrame = stringToTimeFrame(TimeFrame);
HalfLength = MathMax(HalfLength,1);
IndicatorBuffers(7);
SetIndexBuffer(0,tmBuffer); SetIndexDrawBegin(0,HalfLength);
SetIndexBuffer(1,upBuffer); SetIndexDrawBegin(1,HalfLength);
SetIndexBuffer(2,dnBuffer); SetIndexDrawBegin(2,HalfLength);
SetIndexBuffer(3,dnArrow); SetIndexStyle(3,DRAW_ARROW); SetIndexArrow(5,242);
SetIndexBuffer(4,upArrow); SetIndexStyle(4,DRAW_ARROW); SetIndexArrow(6,241);
SetIndexBuffer(5,wuBuffer);
SetIndexBuffer(6,wdBuffer);
if (TimeFrame=="calculateTma") { calculatingTma=true; return(0); }
if (TimeFrame=="returnBars") { returningBars=true; return(0); }
IndicatorFileName = WindowExpertName();
return(0);
} 2. real author of this blocks of code??
Inserted Code
int start()
{
int counted_bars=IndicatorCounted();
int i,limit;
if(counted_bars<0) return(-1);
if(counted_bars>0) counted_bars--;
limit=MathMin(Bars-1,Bars-counted_bars+HalfLength);
if (returningBars) { tmBuffer[0] = limit; return(0); }
if (calculatingTma) { calculateTma(limit); return(0); }
if (timeFrame > Period()) limit = MathMax(limit,MathMin(Bars-1,iCustom(NULL,timeFrame,IndicatorFileName,"returnBars",0,0)*timeFrame/Period())); 3. real author of this blocks of code??
Inserted Code
void calculateTma(int limit)
{
int i,j,k;
double FullLength = 2.0*HalfLength+1.0;
//
for (i=limit; i>=0; i--)
{
double sum = (HalfLength+1)*iMA(NULL,0,1,0,MODE_SMA,Price,i);
double sumw = (HalfLength+1);
for(j=1, k=HalfLength; j<=HalfLength; j++, k--)
{
sum += k*iMA(NULL,0,1,0,MODE_SMA,Price,i+j);
sumw += k;
if (j<=i)
{
sum += k*iMA(NULL,0,1,0,MODE_SMA,Price,i-j);
sumw += k;
}
}
tmBuffer[i] = sum/sumw;
//
double diff = iMA(NULL,0,1,0,MODE_SMA,Price,i)-tmBuffer[i];
if (i> (Bars-HalfLength-1)) continue;
if (i==(Bars-HalfLength-1))
{
upBuffer[i] = tmBuffer[i];
dnBuffer[i] = tmBuffer[i];
if (diff>=0)
{
wuBuffer[i] = MathPow(diff,2);
wdBuffer[i] = 0;
}
else
{
wdBuffer[i] = MathPow(diff,2);
wuBuffer[i] = 0;
}
continue;
}
//
if(diff>=0)
{
wuBuffer[i] = (wuBuffer[i+1]*(FullLength-1)+MathPow(diff,2))/FullLength;
wdBuffer[i] = wdBuffer[i+1]*(FullLength-1)/FullLength;
}
else
{
wdBuffer[i] = (wdBuffer[i+1]*(FullLength-1)+MathPow(diff,2))/FullLength;
wuBuffer[i] = wuBuffer[i+1]*(FullLength-1)/FullLength;
}
upBuffer[i] = tmBuffer[i] + BandsDeviations*MathSqrt(wuBuffer[i]);
dnBuffer[i] = tmBuffer[i] - BandsDeviations*MathSqrt(wdBuffer[i]);
}
} study indicator settings and test it well...
I shall repeat once again and that concerns the first message of this thread : I have no intention to "fix" anything that resident pundits of any forum, changed in any possible way. Not my problem ... Here is a test EA coded by me that uses the indicator version that I have coded too (not that stuff with the "mladen" patched in the name of the indicator, and no, not going top post the source code : I am quite confident that the resident ... will make even faster version
@mladen
how does this _test indicator work?
Same as the above 2 smooth step indicators - just made metatrader 4 versions
we need f i x e d T M A study indicator settings and test it well...